E 
5"4-0 




Class E-^i^.^ 

Book^__rP2_\/_ai 



THE 



SPIRITUALITY AND INDEPENDENCE 



OF THE CHURCH. 



A. SPEECH 

DELIVERED IN THE SYNOD OF NEW YORK, 

OCTOBBB 18th, ISUi. 



BY HENRY J. VAN DYKE, 

PASTOR OF THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BROOKLYN. 



NEW YORK, 1864. 






d 



EXTRACTS FROM THE DELIVERANCE OF THE GENERAL 

ASSEMBLY IN 1845. 

[Note. — The Kev. Mr Van Dyke takes this opportunity to say that the following extracts from the Assem- 
bly's Deliverance in 1815 contain the substance of all he Jms ever believed or taught upon the subject of slavery.] 

" The Cluu'cli of Christ is a spiritual body, whose jurisdiction extends to the religious faith 
and moral conduct of her members. She cannot legislate where Christ has not legislated, nor 
make terms of membership which he has not made. The question, therefore, which this 
Assembly is called to decide, is this : Do the Scriptures teach that the holding of slaves, 
without regard to circurastaucea, is a sin, the renunciation of which should be made a condition 
of membership in the Church ©f Christ? 

" It is impossible to answer this question in the affirmative, without contradicting some of 
the plainest declarations of the word of God. That slavery existed in the days of Christ and 
his Apostles is an admitted fact. That they did not denounce the relation itself as sintul, a» 
inconsistent with Christianity ; that slaveholders were admitted to membership in the Churches 
organized by the Apostles ; that whilst they were required to treat their slaves with kindness, 
and as rational, accountable, immortal beings, and, if Christians, as brethren in the Lord, they 
were not commanded to emancipate them ; that slaves were required to be 'obedient to their 
masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, with singleness of heart, as unto 
Christ,' are facts which meet the eye of every reader of the New Testament. This Assembly 
cannot, therefore, denounce the holding of slaves as necessarily a heinous and scandalous sin, 
calculated to bring upon the Church the curse of God, without charging the Apostles of 
Christ with conniving at sin, introducing into the Church such sinners, and thus bringing upon 
them the curse of the Almighty. 

" The Assembly intend simply to say, that since Christ and his inspired Apostles did not 
make the holding of slaves a bar to communion, we as a court of Christ, have no authority to 
do 80 ; since they did not attempt to remove it fi-om the Church by legislation, we have no 
authority to legislate on the subject. "We feel constrained further to say, that however desir- 
able it may be to ameliorate the condition of the slaves in the Southern and Western States, or 
to remove slavery from our country, these objects, we are fully persuaded, can never be 
secured by ecclesiastical legislation. Much less can they be attained by lliose indis- 
criminate denunciations against slaveholders, without regard to their character and circum- 
stances, which have to so great an extent characterized the movements of modern abolitionists, 
which so far from removing the evils complained of, tend only to perpetuate and aggravate 
them. * 

" The Apostles of Christ sought to ameliorate iha condition of slaves, not by denouncing and 
excommunicating their masters, but by teaching both masters and slaves the glorious doctrines 
of the gospel, and enjoining upon each the discharge of their relative duties. Thus only can 
the Church of Christ, as such, now improve the condition of the slaves in our country. 

'• In view of the above stated principles and facts, 

"Resolved, 1. That the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States 
was originally organized, and has since continued the bond of union in the Church, upon the 
conceded principle that the existence of domestic slavery, under the circumstances iu which it 
is found in the southern portion of the country, is no bar to Christian communion. 

*' 2. That the petitions that ask the Assembly to make the holding of blaves in itself a matter 
of discipline, do virtually require this judicatory to dissolve itself, and abandon tlie organization, 
under which, by the Divine blessing, it has long prospered. The tendency is evidently to 
separate the northern from the southern portion of the Church ; a result which every good 
citizen must deplore, as tending to the dissolution of the Union of our beloved country, and 
which every enlightened Christian will oppose as bringing about a ruinous and unnecessary 
schism between brethren who maintain a common faith. 



[•v 
eidJ 



■U - fj8D- 



ACTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEiMBLY OF 18G4 ON THE SUBJECT OF 

SLAVEliY. 

After enumerating some extracts from some of the former deliverances of the Assembly on 
the subject, the paper adopted in 18C4 proceeds and concludes as follows : 

" Such were the early and unequivocal instructions of our Church. It is not necessary too 
minutely to inquire how faithful and obedient to these lessons and warnings those to whom 
they were addressed have been. It ought to be acknowledged that we have all much to con- 
fess and lament as to our shortcomings in this respect. Whether a strict and careful applica- 
tion of this advice would have rescued the country from the evil of its condition, and the dan- 
gers which have since threatened it, is known to the Omniscient alone. Whilst we do not believe 
that the present judgments inflicted solely in punishment for our continuance in this sin [of 
slavery] ; yet it is our judgment that the recent events of our history, and the present condition 
of our Church and country, furnish manifest tokens that the time has at length caine, in the pro- 
vidence of God, when it is Mis will (hat every vestige of human slavery among us should be 
fjfaced, and that every Christian man shoidd address himself with industry and earnestness to his 
appropriate part in the perforinance of this great duty. 

Whatever excuses for its postponement may heretofore have existed, no longer avail. When 
the country was at peace within itself, and the Church was unbroken, many consciences were 
perplexed in the presence of this great evil, fur the want of an adequate remedy. Slavery was 
so formidably intrenched behind tlie ramparts of personal interests and prejudices, that to at- 
tack it with a view to its speedy overthrow appeared to be attacking the very existence of the 
social order itself, and was characterized as the inevitable introduction of an anarchy, worse in 
its consequences than the evil for which it seemed to be the only cure. But the folly and weak- 
ness of men have been the illustrations of God's wisdom and power. Under the influence of the 
most incomprehensible infatuation of wickedness, those who were most deeply inteiested in the 
perpetuation of slavery have taken away every motive for its further toleration. The spirit of 
American slavery, not content with its defences to be found in the laws of the States, the pro- 
visions of the Federal Constitution, the prejudices in favor of existing institutions, and the fear 
of change, has taken arms against law, organized a bloody rebellion against the national 
authority, made formidable war upon tlie Federal Union, and in order to found an empire upon 
tlie corner-stone of slavery, threatens not only our existence as a people, but the annihilation of 
the i)rinciplcs of free Christian government; and thus has rendered the continuance of negro 
slavery incompatible with the preservation of our own liberty and independence. 

In the struggle of the nation for existence against this powerful and wicked treason, the 
highest executive authorities have proclaimed the abolition of slavery within most of the rebel 
States, and decreed its extinction by military force. They have enlisted those formerly held as 
slaves to be soldiers in the national armies. They have taken measures to organize the labor 
of the freedmcn, and instituted measures for their support and government in tlieir new condi- 
tion. It is the President's declared policy not to consent to the reorganization of civil govern- 
ment within the seceded States upon any other basis than that of emancipation. In the loyal States 
where slavery has not been abolished, measures of emancipation, in different stages of progress, 
have been set on foot, and are near their consummation ; and propositions for an amendment 
to the Federal Constitution, prohibiting slavery in all the States and Territories, are now pend- 
ing in the National Congress. So that, in our present situation, the interests of peace and oi 
social order are identified with the success of the cause of emancipation. Tlie difliculties 
which formerly appeared insurmountable, in the providence of God, appear now to be almost 
removed. The most formidable remaining obstacle, we think, will be found to be the unwilling- 
ness of the human heart to see and accept the truth against the prejudices of habit and of 



6 

interest ; and to act towards those who have been heretofore degraded as slaves, with the 
charity of Christian principle in the necessary efforts to improve and elevate them. 

In view, therefore, of its former testimonies upon the subject, the Genei-al Assembly does 
hereby devoutly express its gratitude to Almighty God for having overruled the wickedness 
and calamities of the rebellion, so as to work out the deliverance of our country from the evil 
and guilt of slavery ; its earnest desire for the extirpation of slavery, as the root of bitterness 
from which has sprung rebellion, war, and bloodshed, and the long list of horrors that follow 
in their train : its earnest trust that the thorough removal of this prolific source of evil and 
harm*will be speedily followed by the blessings of our Heavenly Father, the return of peace, 
union, and fraternity, and abounding prosperity to the whole land ; and recommend to all in 
our communion to labor honestly, earnestly, and unweariedly in their respective spheres for 
this glorions consummation, to which human justice. Christian love, national peace and pros- 
perity, every earlhly and every religious interest, combine to pledge them. 



I^ESOLXJTIOISr 

OFFERED IN THE SYNOD OF NEW YORK, AT ITS MEETING IN JEU«EY 
CITY, OCTOBER 18th, 1864, 

By HElSril'Sr .T. VAN D^^ICE. 



Whereas, The General Assembly of 1864, in its action on the subject 
of Slavery, has fully endorsed " tlie President's declared Policy not to con- 
sent to the re-organization of civil government in the Seceded States u]Jon any 
other basis than that of E mancipation f' affirmmg that the said policy is 
in accordance with the will of God, and that all in our communion are 
pledged by enterj earthly and every religious interest to labor uu- 
weariedly in their respective spheres for its consummation ; — 

And Whereas, the Assembly has thus virtually exerted its influence 
in support of that political party which has selected the President for 
its candidate, and adopted his declared policy as its platform in the 
approaching presidential election ; 

And Whereas, in the case of the Eev. Dr. McPheeters, the Assem- 
bly did apparently sanction the interference of the secular power with 
the spiritual affairs of our churches, the enforcement of political test 
oaths as a qualification for members sitting in our church courts, and 
the proscription of christian ministers, against whom there is no charge 
of heresy or crime, upon the ground that they entertain, or are sup- 
posed to entertain, certain political opinions ; — Therefore, 

Resolved, That this Synod, while disavowing for itself all intention of 
entering directly or indirectly into the political contests of the day, 
does solelmly affirm and declare ; — 

1. That, according to the Word of God and the Constitution of the 
Presbyterian Church, the General Assembly has authority "to handle 
or conclude nothing but that which is ecclesiastical"; that it has no 
right "to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the common- 
wealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary, or by 
way of advice for satisfaction of conscience, if thereunto required by 
the civil magistrate"; (Confession of Faith, ch. xxxi: sec. 4,) that its 
" power is wholly moral or spiritual, and tliat only ministerial and de- 
clarative "; that the limits ^vithin which this ministerial and declarative 
power may be lawfully exercised are clearly defined in ch. xn, of our 
Form of Government; and that aU acts and declarations of the 



8- 

Assembly whicli are contrary to, or aside from, these limits are null 
and void. 

2. That all interference of civil magistrates or military commanders 
with the spiritual affairs of our churches — whether to destroy or restrict 
the right of the people to choose their own religious teachers, to define 
the qualification of members of our church courts, or to prescribe to 
ministers the doctrines they shall preach to men or the prayers they 
shaU offer to God — is a violation of the true principles of religious lib- 
erty and an invasion of the prerogatives of Jesus Christ, who alone is 
head of the Church. See Confession of Faith, ch. xxxiii : sec. 3. 

3. That the bond of union, the measure of obligation, and the char- 
ter of ecclesiastical rights for all the ministers and members of the 
Presbyterian Church, is the Word of God as expounded and summed 
up in our Confession of Faith, Form of Government, Book of Disci- 
pline, Catechisms and Directory for "Worship; and that no minister or 
church-member can be lawfully impeached or proscribed, except upon 
conviction of heresy or crime according to the rules therein provided. 

4. That the appropriate business of Christ's ambassadors is to preach 
the gospel for the conversion of sinners and the edification of saints in 
their most holy faith, and that for our ministers to devote themselves 
unweariedly in their respective spheres to the consummation of the de- 
clared policy of any political party, would be unwise, unscriptural, 
injurious to the best interests of the church and of society, and a dere- 
liction from their divine commission, in the discharge of which they 
are taught by inspired precept and example to "know nothing but 
Jesus Christ and him crucified." 






SPEECH 



Mr. Moderator : Amid the agitations of these troublous times, the 
Synod of New York has adhered with dignity and fidelity to its appro- 
priate ecclesiastical business, forbearing entire]}'- "to intermeddle with civil 
affiiirs which concern the cornmonwealtb." It has thus secured a large 
share of veneration and respect, has done much to preserve the unity of 
the Spirit and the bonds of peace among the churches under its care, and, 
as I verily believe, has merited and received the approbation of Him 
whose kingdom is not of this world. 

The paper before you is not intended to disturb our peace, nor in the 
least to divert this venerable court from the wise and scriptural course it 
has hitherto pursued. The subjects embraced in this paper are strictly 
epiritual and ecclesiastical. The principles it enunciates lie at the founda- 
tion of the Church. The declarations it proposes are all within our pro- 
vince as a court of Christ, are consistent with the course we have hitherto 
pursued, and a vindication of that course, and, as it seems to me, are 
imperatively demanded by our present circumstances. 

You are not asked to decide or discuss any political or secular question ; 
but simply to disavow certain acts in which the General Assembly has 
transcended the limits of its authority as clearly defined in our standards. 
These acts I regard as constituting both a personal grievance, and a great 
public wrong, which, if persisted in, cannot fail to produce strife and 
schism in the bosom of the church. With this deep seated conviction, I 
could do no less than to present this paper to the Synod; and if it can be 
shown that this conviction is well founded, you can do no less than to 
make the disavowal which is desired at your hands. 

The paper before you asserts that the spirituality and the independence 
of the Church have been compromised and violated by the action of the 
General Assembly. 

. The spiriiudliiy of the Church is abundantly set forth in our standards 
of faith and order. The language of these standards upon the subject is 
so explicit that he who runs may read and understand it, 

(1.) We have general declarations as to the nature and mission of the 

-.rch, both visible and invisible. The invisible Church " consists of 

. 3 whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be, gathered 



• 10 

into one under Christ, the head thereof; and is the sponf^e, the body, the 
fulness of him that filleth all in aU"— [Confession of Faith, Chap. 25, Sec. 
1, 2.] The visible Church " consists of all those, throughout the world, 
that profess the true religion, together with their children ; and is the 
kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the houge and family of God." This 
simple definition of the Church declares her mission, and describes the 
limits of her work. She does not belong to any age or nation. She may 
be partly -in the United States of America, but she is not of the United 
States. Under the old Theocracy, she was identified for a time with the 
Jewish nation, and her interests were temporarily bound up with the pre- 
servation and prosperity of an earthly kingdom ; but, when the purposes 
of this peculiar and temporary economy were accomplished, and the only 
promises God ever made to a nation, as such, were f<n-feited by the 
apostacy of the Jews, the Church was no longer national in any sense : she 
is henceforth universal, composed of men of all nationalities and of all 
varieties of human condition, united upon the simple basis of their pro- 
fessed union to Christ, and constituting in themselves, irrespective of all 
earthly distinctions, " a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy 
nation." "If," said John Milton, "Church and State shall be made 
one flesh again as under the law, let it be w^ithal considered, that God, who 
then joined them, hath now severed them : that which was then a lawful 
conjunction. He so ordaining, to such on either side as join again what 
He hath severed, would be nothing now but their own presumptuous 
fornication." The Church of Christ, as Paul argues in the third chapter 
of the Epistle to the Galatians, is the outgrowth and fulfilment of that 
covenant made with Abraham four hundred years before the giving of the 
law, and which "the law could not disannul.'' Her mission in the world 
is to bless all nations ; shining, like the sun, upon all, but being identified 
with none. It is her simple but sublime function to preach the gospel to 
every creature, to gather in the elect from the four winds of heaven, to 
edify the mystical body of Christ. Accordingly, God has given her, in 
the New Testament, a form of Government complete within itself, and 
entirely separate from all human polities ; a kingly government, of which 
Christ is the head, and his ministers the ambassadors and agents. Now, 
this government is fully defined and set forth in our standards ; and I 
challenge any man to show in these standards, or in the Bible, of which 
we believe they are a true exponent, a single intimation that the Church 
may lawfully extend her jurisdiction, or put forth her agency, one inch 
beyond the preaching of the gospel to every creature and the regulation of 
her own internal and spiritual affairs. 

(2.) But our standards do not stop with these general declarations as to 
the nature and mission of the Church. We have also very explicit state- 
ments as to the appropriate province of our church courts. " Synods and 



councils are to handle or conclade nothing but that which is ecclesiastical, 
and are not to intermeddle with civil affiiirs which concern the common- 
.wealth," Can anything be more explicit than this? Again, "their power 
is wholly moral or spiritual, and that only ministerial or declarative." 
Even in regard to spiritual things they have no right to inculcate doctrines, 
to make proclamations, or to enjoin observances of any kind, except so far 
as they are warranted and moved thereto by the revealed will of God. 
" They possess the right of requiring obedience to the laws of Christ?^ But 
beyond this they may not go, to enforce any obligation which He has not 
imposed in his written word, to conserve any interest which He has not 
declared to be essential to his spiritual and everlasting kingdom, or even 
to recommend any course of human conduct which they cannot establish 
and seal by the divine sanction of " thus saith the Lord." It is not for 
them to supplement or enlarge the statutes that " furnish the man of God 
unto all good works," by their expositions of that mysterious Providence 
of which God himself is the only true interpreter. They are to repeat and 
enforce what he says ; what he intends, beyond and aside from this, it is 
none of their business to declare. The Assembly recognized and clearly 
expounded this organic law of all our church courts in its action on the 
subject of Temperance in the year 1848 : " The Church of Jesus Christ is 
a spiritual body, to which have been given the ministry, oracles, and 
ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this 
life to the end of the world. It is the great instrumentality of the Saviour 
through which, by his eternal spirit, he dispenses salvation to the objects 
of his love. Its ends are holiness and life, to the manifestation of the 
riches and glory of divine grace, and not simply morality, decency, and 
good order, which may, to some extent, be secured without faith in the 
Redeemer, or the transforming efl&cacy of the Holy Spirit. The laws of 
the Church are the authoritative injunctions of Christ, and not the cove- 
nants, however benevolent in their origin and aim, which men have 
instituted of their own will ; and the grounds of obligation which the 
Church, as such, inculcates is the authority of God speaking in his word, 
and not pledges of honor which create, measure, and define the peculiar 
duties of all voluntary associations. In this Kingdom of God the Holy 
Scriptures are the only rule of faith and manners ; and no Church judicatory 
ought to pretend to make laws which shall bind the conscience, or to issue 
recommendations which shall regulate manners without the warrant, explicit or 
implied, of the Revealed will of God.'' 

I call your attention especially to the last sentence of the foregoing 
extract. The Assembly of 1848 solemnly affirms that " no church court 
ought to pretend to issue recommendations which shall regulate manners 
without the warrant, explicit or implied, of the revealed will of God." 
We shall see presently how far, in the stormy days of 1864, the Assembly 



# 12 

adhered to tlie deliberate and dispassionate judgment of the Cliurch in 
1848. 

(3.) Besides these declarations as to the appropriate province of church 
courts in general, we have, furthermore, a clear definition of the jurisdic- 
tion and province of the General Assembly in particular. Chapter XII, 
sees. 4 and 5, of our Form of Government tells us exactly what the 
Assembh^ may lawfully do. And it is to be presumed that no one here 
will dispute the doctrine, that where there is a written law, specifically 
defining the powers of a representative body, the body whose powers are 
so defined cannot go beyond that law without violating its own consti- 
tution, and breating covenant with its constituents. Now, what are the 
powers of the General Assembly? (Read chap. XII, sees. 4 and 5 of the 
Form of Government.) Now, Sir, these statutes speak for themselves. 
They are so plain that it is impossible to misundorstand their meaning, 
And I desire you to notice that in those sentences which describe the 
Assembly's general powers — powers which, in days of excitement and 
spiritual declension, are most liable to be stretched — there is a restricting 
clause, designed to interpose an effectual barrier to all usurpation or abuse 
of authority. For example, the Assembly is " to constitute a bond of 
union, peace, correspondence, and mutual confidence among all our 
churches ;" it is to superintend the concerns (not of the nation, but) of '* the 
whole Church ;" it is to recommend reformation of manners, and the pro- 
motion of charit}^ truth, and holiness through alt the Churches under its 
care^ Not only is its power spiritual, and that ministerial and declarative, 
confined to the simple exposition and enforcement of what God has 
revealed in His word; but the province in which this power is to be 
exercised is not the State, nor society in general ; it is the Cliurch, beyond 
which her only function is to proclaim the gospd, and call men out of the 
world into the kingdom of God's dear son. 

Before attempting to show wherein the General Assembly has violated 
these three great principles, as to the nature and mission of the Church, the 
appropriate province of Church courts in general, and thelimitsof her own 
constitutional authority in particular, let us dwell for a mom.ent on their 
importance. They lie at the very foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
of which Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone. Humanly speaking, the 
Church never could have been established, nor could Christianity have been 
prOpogatcd with the marvellous success which signalized her early history, 
without their clear recognition. The city of God under the New Testament, 
was built at the confluence of three civilizations. Greek, Eoman, and Jew 
were jostling together in the currents of trade and the conflicts of political 
opinion, and every interest of human society was involved in the con- 
test. The Eoman Empire was stretching forth the mailed hand of her 
power over rebellious provinces, and struggling in the first throes of those 



18 

grefit revolutions which resulted in her final dissolution. Men felt then, 
as they have felt since, that they were living in the most wonderful age of 
the world, and that everything valuable on earth would be lost unless tJieir 
views of governrhent and politics were carried out. 

To guard the ^hurch against the strife and schism which these conflicts 
of opinion and interest would naturally occasion, was one great object of 
the apostles. It was the hardest task they had to perform. They performed 
it with many tears, and often at the risk of censure and persecution from 
their own brothren. And how did they seek to preserve the peace and 
unity of the Church? Did they enter into the political and military con- 
tests of the countries through which the saints were scattered abroad, or 
undertake, inspired and infallible as they were, to decide the questions of 
political allegiance and secular interest by which the world and christians 
in the world were divided? Did they in anywise identify the Church of 
Christ with the Eoman Empire on the one hand, or with the down trodden 
but still struggling nationality of the Jews on the other? Did they seek 
to cultivate among the christian graces, and the fruits of the spirit, that 
patriotism^ which is confessedly one of the finest impulses of the human heart, 
but still a purely natural affection, gathering some of its brightest trophies 
and naost illustrious examples from the history of heathen Rome and mytho- 
logical Greece ? If the apostles pursued any such course as this, the inspired 
history and the records of the primitive Church have failed to record it. 
Let those who now advocate such methods, show us their scriptural war- 
rant. It will not do to appeal on this point to Old Testament examples. 
In regard to the question in hand, there is no parallel between the position 
of the Jewish prophet and that of a Christian minister ; for the Jewish com- 
monwealth constituted in all stnges of its history a pure Theocra.cy. 
David was anointed of God, as the type of Christ, and his kingdom was 
the dim foreshadow of that kingdom which is not of this world. He 
was not only King, but Prophet. When he uttered imprecatioi^s 
upon the enemies of the Jewish State, God spake through him against 
His enemies and the enemies of ihe Church. When he poured out his 
passionate love for Jerusalem, his prophetic soul was enraptured with 
the glories of the new Jerusalem coming down from God out of 
heaven. And now, it is sheer ignorance, if it be not blasphemy, for 
a New Testament minister, whose head Samuel has not anointed, 
and whom God has not moved by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to 
seize the scepter and harp of David, and put on the mantle of Elijah, and 
dwarfing the prophecies into mere temporal predictions, to apply them to 
a nation whom God has never chosen as he did the Jews, or to a human 
government which he has not set up as he did the old Theocracy. The 
proofs we demand must be found, if found at all, in the examples of Clirist 
and his apostles. Are there any such proofs ? Where? In the Saviour's 



14 

wise avoidance of the snare wnich the Herodians set for him in regard to 
the disputed question, as to the lawfulness of Cassar's government over 
subjugated Judea? Or in his refusal to be a judge or divider over men in 
regard to the division of an inheritance among brothreu ? Can they be 
found in the records of the first synod or ecclesiastical council assembled in 
Jerusalem at a time when the world was preparing to witness such 
civil strife and wo, as never have been before, and never will be again? 

Is there in all the recorded sermons or epistles of the apostles, a single 
decision or utterance upon questions of disputed political allegiance, or 
governmental policy ? No sir, they cannot be found. The aposilgs left 
Ciesar to attend to Ccesar's affairs, and devoted themselves exclusively to 
the work Christ had commissioned them to do.^ They preserved the unity 
of the Church amid all the changes and strifes of their day, and for many 
generations after, by insisting on the true nature of Church unity, as per- 
taining only to sjnrilual things. They plead for unity upon the broad b isis 
of the gospel, and insisted upon christian liberty in regard to everything 
aside fr-om the gospel. In their teaching they knew nothing but "Jesus 
Christ," and him crucified. While politicians and excited multitudes cried 
" we have no King but Coesar," they cried in the church " we have no 
King but Jesus," And in their ecclesiastical action, they undertook to con- 
serve no interests but the interests of Christ's spiritual kingdom. It was not 
until these principles, and this inspired example was departed from — not 
until the Church began to be localized and secularized — not until her min- 
isters and courts began to intermeddle with civil affairs, and to transfer the 
contests of the Senate and the Camp to the house of God, that the love of 
the Church waxed cold, and the glory of her early spiritual triumphs 
departed. 

The subsequent history of the Church, in every age, fully vindicates the 
wisdom of the apostles, and the soundness of the great principle that the 
province of the Church is purely spiritual. 

Oh, that our General Assembly, even amid the storm that was sweeping 
over the land, had heeded the voice of our standards and the lessons of 
history, and kept herself in a position to pour oil on the waves of party 
passion, and bind up the wounds of civil conflict with the sweet ointment 
and clean linen of the gospel of peace. It is the first step that costs. 
When the Assembly of 1861 undertook to decide the question which 
has divided statesmen and politicians ever since the United States have 
had an existence— (the question v/hether, under the Constitution, political 
allegiance is due primarily to the State or to the Federal Government) — 
many of our ministers and elders protested, not against the particular deci- 
sion which was made, but against the assumption of authority to decide such 
questions at all They thought that if the right and the duty to decide 
civil questions in our church courts were once conceded, this concession 



15 

would be like the letting out oF water. That protest is one of the memo- 
rials which future ages will honor as a landmark in the history of the 
Church ; and, if the next four years shall be marked by the same kind of 
progress that has characterized our ecclesiastical legislation during the four 
years just past, it will shine as a lamp in a dark place, and be looked back 
to by thousands with the regret that gathers around the remembrance of a 
faithful but disregarded warning. 'Naj, it is so regarded now by rnultitudes 
who love the Church and mourn sincerely over the conformity to this 
world by which she has defiled her garments, and the seeds of fire she has 
planted in her own bosom. 

The action of the last Assembly on the subject of slavery is the lowest 
depth yet attained in its course of political legislation. I know not whether 
there is yet any lower deep to be opened. Now, on this point I will not be 
misunderstood. There can be no valid objection to the Assembly's discus- 
sing and making deliverances upon the subject of slavery. It is a scrip- 
ture subject. Moses and Paul discuss it. The Bible is fall of the subject ; 
and the great sin we have committed is, that while baptized infidels and 
humanitarians of every grade have been insinuating their theories into the 
mind and conscience of the Church, through a thousand channels, we have 
been afraid to expound the Word of God as he has written it, and as 
Christian commentators have understood it from the beginning. Neither 
do I object now upon the ground that the A ssembly's last deliverance is 
inconsistent with scripture or with its former declarations. Upon that 
point I have nothing to say in the present discussion. But what I assert, 
and propose to prove, is, that in connection with this subject of slavery, 
and under the cover of it, the Assembly has handled and determined a 
question whifti is purely political^ and entirely beyond its appropriate province ; 
and that in so doing, it has transcended its authority, violated the constitu- 
tion of the Church, and invaded the liberty wherewith, according to our 
standards, Christ has made his people free. 

Mr. Modkrator : There are in this country two great political parties, 
each of them embracing ministers and members of our Church. Now, 
what is the great question in dispute between the?e parties? Simply this, 
Hie basis on which the Union shall be reconstnicted. One nai'tv, through its 
chosen leader, has declared '"the policy not to consent to the reconstruction 
of civil government in the seceded States upon any other basis than that of 
emancipation." The other party insist, that this policy of emancipation is 
revolutionary, unconstitutional, and impracticable, and adapted only to 
protract the horrors of civil war ; that peace ought to be, and can be, 
established only on the basis of the Union as it ivas and the Constitution as it 
is. This is the point, and almost the only point, in dispute between the 
two great poliiical parties, as I could easily show, if it were necossary, by 
documentary evidence. 



16 

Now, I do not say which party is right in this contest While T have my 
own opinion, and mean to have it, I would deprecate and resist any declar- 
ation from this Synod, by which its influence, as an ecclesiastical body, 
would be arrayed on either side. But I do insist that, under our Confes- 
sion of Faith and Form of Government, to say nothing now about the 
Christian expediency of such a course, the General Assembly had no con- 
stitutional right to step in between these two political parties and take 
sides with one of them in regard to the great question by which they are 
divided. Will any candid man deny that the Assembly has virtually, if 
not formally, done this ? I do not presume to affirm that the gentleman 
who introduced and advocated the deliverance on slavery with so much 
legal tact and ability, meant thereby to advance the interests of one political 
party to the detriment of the other ; still less do I intimate that the mem- 
bers of the Assembly were influenced by party zeal in its adoption ; but 
surely no one can fail to see, or will venture to deny, that it throws the 
whole moral influence of the Assembly in favor of one political party 
and that if its recommendations were faithfully carried out in the true spirii 
and intent, every minister and every member of the Presbyterian Churcl 
would be an adherent of that party. 

The head and front of the document is the following sentence, which i.9 
italicized in the Minutes of the Assembly: "It is our judgment that the 
recent events in our history, and the present condition of our Cliurch and 
country furnish manifest tokens that the time has at length come, in the pro- 
vidence of God, when it is His will that every vestige of human slavery among 
us should he efjaced, and that every Christian man should address himself with 
industry and earnestness, to his ajjpropriaie part in the performance of this great 
dutyy ^ 

Now, upon what did the Assembly base its judgment as to the will 
of God, and by what sign from heaven is the solemn proclamation of that 
will authenticated ? The humblest member in the Church has a right to 
ask this question. Jesus Christ gave the "sign of the Prophet Jonah," 
even to " a wicked and adulterous generation.' Is it irreverent or pre- 
sumptuous in me to demand what are the " manifest tokens" by which the 
Assembly ascertained the will of God in regard to emancipation ? 

It is not pretended that these tokens are found in the Holy Sciiptures, 
which we acknowledge to be the only infallibli rule of faith and practice. In 
the whole document, as adopted by the Assembly, there is not one quotation 
of scripture, nor the most distant allusion to any such book as the Bible. 
Now, is not this marvellous ? An Assembly, whose authority is confess- 
edly only ministerial and declarative ; whose own solemn testimonies affirm 
that " no Church judicatory ought to pretend to issue recommendations 
which shall regulate manners, without the warrant, explicit or implied, of 
the revealed will of God," this Assembly makes a deliverance, designed not 



17 

only to " regulate manners," but to influence the policy and destiny of a 
nation, upon a subject on wbicb God in bis boly Word has spoken 
explicitly and repeatedly, and yet this deliverance does not contain one 
appeal or allusion to the Bible. As though God had not spoken, or as 
though they were authorized to supplement his revealed will, the Assembly 
turn from what is written to the prognostication of providences not yet 
completed. I will not trust myself to comment on this fact. It is sufTi- 
cient to state it. The Assembly did not find the manifest tokens of God's 
will in the Bible. 

Neither can it be successfully maintained that these tokens are found in 
the former deliverances of the Assembly. It is true that some of the 
former testimonies are quoted in part, but the declaration that "an 
immediate and universal emajicipaiion would be inconstent aliJce with the 
safety and happiness of the master and the slave,^^ is omitted in the citation 
from the action of 1818 ; and the action of 1815, the most elaborate and 
carefully drawn of all the Assembly's deliverances on the subject, and, 
indeed, the only one in which the word of God is fully expounded and de- 
clared, is utterly overlooked and ignored. 

Neither, again, will it be asserted that these tokens arc found in the 
Providence of God during nearly four thousand years, from the days of 
Abraham to the year 1861, during all which time slavery has been 
permitted to exist, and according to the Assembly's declaration in 1845 
has been recognized and regulated by the word of God. What, then, are 
these "manifest tokens?" They are all of recent growth. They anpear 
to the eyes of the Assembly through the smoke and blood of a civil war 
still raging, and the dust and noise of a political contest not 3'ot decided. 
They hinge upon, and must stand or fall with " the President's declared 
policy not to consent to the reorganization of civil government in the seceded 
States, except upon a basis of emancipation." They are such as tliese ; 
the President's "proclamation abolishing slavery, and decreeing its extinc- 
tion by military force;" the measures of emancipation" which are said to 
be set on foot and near their consummation in the loyal States ; " the 
proposition for the amendment of the Federal Constitution, prohibitin<T 
slavery in all the States and Territories." These are among the "manifest 
tokens" of the will of God ; and they vive politital p)arty m.easiires, every one 
of them,. They form a part of the President's declared policy ; but whether 
they shall be carried out is a question yet to be decided by the issues of a 
great military and political contest. And even if they were all accom- 
plished, it might still be a question whether they are manifest tokens of 
anything more than ihe permissive wWl of God. This whole proceeding on 
the part of the Assembly fills me with alarm and sorrow. I cannot but 
ask such questions as the following : Is it wise for God's ministers to 
declare His will in reference to matters not revealed, amid the heat and 



16 

excitement of sno"h a time as this, and that, too, in regard to providences not 
yet finished? If the result should be different from what they expect or 
desire, will not religion be brought into contempt ? Ought they to take the 
declared policy of any civil magistrate or human government for a manifest 
token of His will, whose throne is surrounded with clouds and darkness? 
Are not ministers and elders, like other men, liable to be biased by their own 
interests and passions? These, however, are not the questions which this 
synod is asked to decide. The paper before you simply affirms that the 
Assembly transcended the limits of its authority when it endorsed, as an 
evidence or an execution of the will of God, the declared policy of one, who 
is not only President, but acandidate for office. 

After enumerating six party measures and recogizing them as " manifest 
tokens" of the will of God, viz.^the President's abolition proclamation and 
" decree," the enlistment of negro soldiers, the " organization of the labor 
of the freedmen, the Presideyii^s declared policy in regard to reconstruction, 
the emancipation measures in progress in the Border States, and the pro- 
posed amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing 
slavery : after enumerating these measures, not one of which has yet been 
consummated, except the enlistment of negro soldiers, the Assembly pro- 
ceeds, from such premises, to draw this broad conclusion — " So that the 
interests of peace and social order are 1denti?ed with the success OF 
THE CAUSE OF EMANCIPATION." It was not necessary to go further. 
Even the recommendations which follow are superfluous. Every politician 
in the land, and every voter capable of reasoning, can easily construct the 
syllogism of which the Assembly has given the major premise. 

Here is the syllogism : 

" The interest of peace and social order are identified with the success of 
the cause of emancipation ; 

The success of the cause of emancipation is identified with the success 
of the Eepublican party ; 

therefore the interests of peace and social order are identified with the 
success of the Eepublican party, and every lover of peace and order is 
bound to vote for that party. 

But did not every man in the Assembly and out of it know that a large 
and respectable party, embracing as good men and as sound Presbyterians 
as there are in the Church, utterly deny and repudiate the first premise, 
and strenuously oppose all the political measures upon which it is ba>^ed ? 
The President's proclamation and decree is universally held by the Demo- 
cratic party to be unconstitutional, and void *' as the Pope's bull against 
the comet ;" the enlistment of negro soldiers is regarded by many as an 
injur}' to the Federal arms; the so-called ''organization of the labor of 
freedmen" is looked upon by many true friends of the negro as a new and 
more wretched form of slavery ; the President's " declared policy" is 



10 

denounced from every Democratic press and rostrum as the obstacle to 
peace and order which must be removed at the coming election ; the 
measures of emancipation in *' the loyal States" can be consummated only 
by the overthrow of one political party in those States ; the proposed 
alteration of the constitution, in order to abolish slavery, is an admission 
that the constitution, as it now stands, is m the uxiy of such abolition ; 
rnd the whole proposition, so authoritatively announced by the Assembly, 
" that the interests of peace and social order are identified with the success 
of the cause of emancipation," is not only a virtual endorsement of the 
plans and purposes of the Republican party, but a virtual condemnation 
of the whole policy and plans of the opposite party. 

And yet, in the face of that opposing party, thousands of whose 
adherents sit at our communion tables and preach in our pulpits, the 
Assembly goes on to say that " the most formidable remaining obstacle 
will be found to be the unwillingness of the human heart to see and accept 
truth against the prejudices of habit and interest." 

Now is this so? Is prejudice the most furmidahle remaining ohstacle to the 
success of the caupe of emancipation os proclaimed and decreed by the highest 
executive authorities? Is a sacred regard for that part of the Constitution 
which it is proposed to amend a mcYQ prejudice f Is it a mere prejudice to 
hold with many of the soundest statcmen and purest christians in our com- 
munion, that written covenants and unrepealed statutes lie in the way of 
the President's declared policy? Is it mere prejudice to believe, as the 
whole Democratic party professes honestly to believe, that this whole 
emancipation policy is delaying the dawn of the blessed day of peace and 
union, and desolating the fjurest portions of the earth v/ith unneccessary 
conflagration and slaughter? Is it mcvQ prejudice for a Presbyterian min- 
ister or church member to believe now what the Assembly declared in 
1818, that "an immediate and universal emancipation would be inconstent 
alike with the safety and happiness of the master and the slave?" 

Well, sir, if all this can possibly be mere prejudice, only God and the re- 
velations of the judgment daj- are competent to decide that it is. It is not for 
any uninspired Assembly thus to sit in judgment upon the hearts of a whole 
political parly ; and especially it is not for an ecclesiastical court, whose 
powers are clearly defined, to step out of its jurisdiction, and without any 
warrant of the revealed will of God, to decide questions in dispute between 
political parties, in both of which there are thousands whose christian 
sincctity is unimpeached. 

Nor did the Assembly content itself with endorsing the policy of a 
polilical party. It goes much further, and laj-s upon " all in our com- 
munion," upon ministers, and elders, and church members, upon every one 
who claims to be a law-abiding Presbyterian, upon every friend of his 
country, upon every lover of justice and humanity, a solemn rccommenda- 



20 

tion to set forward and labor for the consummation of that policy by every 
means in his power. It says, that " the interests of ppace and of social order 
are identified with the success of emancipation ;" that we are pledged to labor 
for this cause by the combined obligation of "every earthly and every 
religious interest." That is to say, if language means anj^thing, the 
Assembly recommends to all her ministers, under pain of being held 
recreant to every pledge that binds them as ministers and men, to preach and 
pray in their respective spheres for the success of the " President's declared 
policy ;" and since that policy cannot be consummated unless he is 
re-elected, all in our communion are virtually recommended to vote for him 
in preference to the other candidate. 

Now, sir, in the presence of God, and his Church, I put it to you, 
whether it was kind, or wise, or lanfal, for the Assembly to do this thing? 
Was it competent for a court of Jesus Christ, assembled in his name, for 
the transaction of business pertaining to his spiritual kingdom — was it 
consistent with the design and province of the Assembly, as "the bond of 
union, pcr.ce, correspondence, and mutual confidence among the Churches" 
(Form of Government, ch. 12, sec. 4,) to descend as a combatant into the 
arena of political strife ? Had the Assembly a right to lay this new bur- 
den on the conscience of its ministers, to put into the hands of those who 
ma}' be disposed to disturb the peace of the Churches by transferring the 
strifes of this world into the house and family of God, this new weapon 
with which to embarrass them in their honest labors for the salvation of 
souls ? Had the Assembly a right to direct my conduct as a minister or 
as a man in matters concerning which the Word of God and the standard 
of our Church have given no direction whatever? No ! The Assembly 
transcended its legitimate powers. Might I not say, will not the dispas- 
sionate judgment of the future say that, under the pressure of a mistaken 
zeal, it violated the bond of peace and mutual confidence among all our 
Churches ? 

Mr. Moderator: When I adopted the Confession of Faith and Form o^ 
Government of the Presbyterian Church, and solemnly promised, in my 
ordination vows, to submit to my brethren in the Lord, I did not consent tha^ 
any church court should direct me how to vote as a citizen, what political 
policy I should sustain, or whether I should sustain any political policy ; 
and even though the deliverances of the Assembly on such subjects should 
correspond exactly with my own opinion, I would hold and declare them 
to be null and void As a minister of the Presbyterian Church I owe alle- 
giance only to my blessed and glorious king, Jesus Christ, and the charter 
of my rights and measures of my obligations is the Word of God summed 
up in our accepted standards of Faith and Order. 

My commission, as an ambassador of Christ, is already written with 
sufficient clearness. It needs no addition from the " declared policy" of 



21 

any civil magistrate or political leader. " The manifest tokens" of the 
will of God in regard to the objects for which I am to " labor honestly, 
earnestly, and unweariedly in my appropriate sphere " were written 
eighteen centuries ago in that gospel which I am ordained to expound and 
proclaim. With the utmost respect for its legitimate authority, I say the 
General Assembly has neither the right nor the ability to add to these 
tokens, nor to enlarge these objects, by uninspired prognostications of that 
providence in which God " plants his footsteps in the sea, and rides upon 
the storm." Let the car of providence and of prophecy roll on, whither- 
soever the King in Zion, in his secret councils, may direct its course; it is 
the business of the General Assembly, as well as of the humblest member 
of our communion, to ride behind And I say this, not as a mere matter of 
abstract right ; but because I tremble to contemplate the scene our Church 
would present if our ministers should carry out the instructions of the 
Assembly to their legitimate results. We should have " confusion worse 
confounded ;" the Sabbath-day made hideous by the strife and tumult of 
the week, and the house of God defiled by the contests of Republicans and 
Democrats more than it was by the presence of the money changers whom 
Christ drove with a whip of small cords from the temple. How far this 
result has already been reached in other Christian denominations and in 
some of our own churches, I leave you to judge. I consider myself 
pledged "by every earthly and every religious interest" not to do what 
the Assembly recommends. The history of past civil wars, and the testi- 
mony of God's faithful witnesses in former days of tribulation, warn us to 
keep this contest out of the Church, and to devote ourselves, as ministers, 
to the preaching of the gospel and to the cure of souls. Let me quote a 
single specimen of the testimony to which I refer. In the year 177G, the 
empire of Great Britain, possessing what was, at that time, " the best 
government on the fiice of the earth," as every student of history will 
admit, was convulsed to its centre with foreign war and internal dissension. 
Her own colonics were in rebellion; France was preparing to strike a 
deadly blow at her national existence ; and strife between political parties 
was at fever heat. At this time Augustus Toplady, whom no one will 
accuse of dislo^^alty to the State, or of extreme views in regard to the 
spirituality of the Church, uttered these memorable words: "Few men 
have been more prone to diibble in poliiics than some divines. And it 
must be added that, in general, few men have acquitted themselves more 
lamely upon that subject than those reverend daubers with untempered 
mortar. The truth is, that those of the clergy who mostly content them- 
selves with paddling in the shallows of a superficial morality, step much 
beyond the line both of their ability and of their proper department when 
they attempt to fathom the deep waters of politics. For it is well known 
that (in past ages, at least) politics and morality have had but very slender 
connexion with each other. As to those of us who deem it our duty to 
preach the gospel, and to know nothing among our people but Jesus 



22 

r 

Christ and hitn crucified, we, of all persons in the world, should religiously 
abstain from whatever may conduce to cherish the seeds and fan the tires 
of civil discord. Shocking it is when they who profess to experience and 
to preach tlie love of Christ, can so far prostitute the dignity and design of 
their sacred calling as to offer fulsome incense at the shrine of aggrandizt'd 
authority, or seek to exasperate differing parties against each other; instead 
of laboring to preserve unity of spirit to strengthen the bonds of peace 
and promote righteousness of life. Such bad men in black pay very little 
attention to that solemn vow which they took at the time of their ordi- 
nation, when they pledged themselves to God and man that they would 
lay aside the study of the vrorld and of the flesh, and maintain and set 
forward, as much as in thera lieth, quietness, peace, and love among all 
Christian people. Our direct business is with the policy of an invisible 
and better country ; even of a kingdom which is not of this world. On 
one hand, we arc to sound the trumpet, not of secular, but of spiritual 
alai-m ; and on the other, to proclaim unto them that mourn, and to them 
that believe in Zion, 

' The jojful news of sins forgiven. 
Of hell subdued, and peace with heaven,' " 

Mr. Moderator, the words of Toplady are just as true and as applica- 
ble in New York and all over the land, t j day, as they were in London 
when our mother country was passing through the most eventful crisis of 
her history. Dearly as I love my whole country — and I will not stop to 
sound a trumpet before m.e oa that point ; proud as I am, and perhaps too 
proud, of her early history ; and hopeful as I am that God will yet merci* 
fully deliver her from the judgments our sins have provoked; I do not 
believe, but reject as blasphemous, the sentiment so often uttered even by 
christian ministers, that God cannot do without the United States, that the 
Church of Christ is in anywise identified with or dependant upon our 
national existence. According to my reading of God's covenant oath to 
his son, (in Psahn II,) the kingdoms of this world are given to Zion's 
King, that he " may break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces 
as a potter's vessel." And whether it is his inscrutible purpose to dash this 
nation in pieces or not, the foundations of the Church are secure. 

Dr. Waits has given us the true interpretation of that precious lamenta- 
tion and vow which the children of the captivity poured out by the rivers 
of Babylon. (Psalm 137.) It was not, as some would have it, a mere ex- 
pression of temporal allegiance and patriotic affection. It was something 
higher and better. 

" I love thy Kingdom Lord, 

The house of thine abode, 
The Ohurch our blessed Redeemer saved 

With his own precious blood. 
For her my tears shall fall. 

For her my prayers ascend, 
To her my toils and cares be given, 

Till toils and cares shall end." 



23. 

Mr. Moderator, I adopt those words as my own ; and bj my love for 
her whom Christ loved and redeemed with bis blood, by my allegiance to 
him "who claims the Chm-ch as his spouse pure and undefiled, I will not, 
even at the behest of the General Assembly — I ivill not devote myself un- 
weariedly to the consummation of " the declared policy " of any civil mag- 
istrate, or of any candidate for political office, or even to the perpetuity of 
any earthly kingdom. And I say this, not merely as a christian minister, 
but as a patriot. The true peace and prosperity of nations must ultimately 
depend upon the christian character of the individual citizen ; and minis- 
ters can best promote the growth of whatsoever is lovely and of good re- 
port among the people when they stand aloof from the conflicts and ex- 
citements of political parties. 

The second subject embraced in the paper before you, is the Independence 
of the Church. 

Mr. Moderator, all history shows that wherever the Church goes out 
of its proper sphere to " intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the 
commonwealth," the state will not be slow to return the back-handed com- 
pliment, and intermeddle with spiritual affairs which concern the Church. 
How can we expect it to be otherwise ? Let it once be admitted by her 
own declarations, that the Church, as such, is the supporter and advocate 
of any particular form of human government, the ally and counsellor of 
any potentate or president ; and especially, let it once be admitted by her 
own acts that she may enter into political strife, and become the supporter 
of any party in the state, and it becomes at once the interest, and accord- 
ing to her own admission, the duty of those in power to see that her sup- 
port is rendered thoroughly and properly. Hence, whenever the Church 
lias herself opened the 5oor of intrusion, the "powers that be" have 
promptly entered; and even where the Church has invoked the aid of 
secular power to accomplish her own purposes, like the horse in the fable, 
she has soon found hereelf saddled by a human master whom she could 
not easily shake off. 

It is worthy of further remark, that this interference of the state has 
always been begun in stormy times, under the plea of pressing political 
necessity. When the S'.uarts were attempting to enforce a particular 
form of prayer upon the 'Churches in Scotland at the point of the sword, 
they asserted, and honesily thought that the national life was at issue in 
the contest. So thought the Puritans, when failing to learn the true prin- 
ciples of religious toleration from their own persecutions they banished 
Roger Williams from Massachusetts. They were only protecting the life 
of the infant colony. The most violent persecutors, even Phillip II, when 
he was demolishing the Churches and hanging ministers in the Netherlands 
— and Queen BHzabeth, when she was doing the same thing on a smaller 
scale in England, disavowed all authority to interfere with the rights of 



24 

conscience. They insisted that they were only protecting the State and 
preserving the life of the nation in the hour of its peril ; they were dealing 
with ministers as puLlic men, and with christians as subjects; they were 
directing prayer, not as worship offored to God, but as a public service 
which might have a powcrfal influence upon the course of public affairs 

And sir, we heard but the echo of the sentiments which prevailed three 
hundred years ago in the Escurial and the Star Chamber, when it waf 
declared in the last General Assembly without remonstrance or rebuke 
that iJie cliief magistrate has, hj virtue oj his office, and in times like these, ough 
to exercise the right, to exclude any man from our pulpits whom He may con 
sider dangerous to the commonwealth. 

When I heard that declaration, I looked around in amazement to see 
what impression it v/ould make, I waited anxiously to hear some excla 
mation for the honor of Christ's crown and kingdom. But there was nc 
response, except a murmur of approbation from a part of the Assembly. 

'' How is the gold become dim ! how is the most fine gold changed ! the 
stones of the sanctuary are poured out in the top of every street. 

The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold, how are they esteemed, 
as earthen pitchers, the work of the hands of the potter ! " 

Have we forgotten the histor}-- of the contest for the headship of Christ 
in our mother church of Scotland ; the stories of Melville, of Kutherford, 
and of Erskine, of the Scotch secession, and of the Free Church Exodus ? 
" In these bloody days,'' says Ebenezer Erskine, in a sermon entitled 
" The stono rejected by the builders," preached at Perth in 1732, and 
which contains marvellous good reading for these days, " in those bloody 
days the headship and sovereignty of Christ was contended for by many 
of the Lord's worthies even unto death ; and it has been the peculiar honor 
of the Church of Scotland, particularly in these days of persecution, to bear 
testimony to Christ as alone head and king of his Church, in opposition to 
those dangerous and heaven -daring encroachments that were made upon it." 
And do we think that human natu.re has grown so much better in this 
nineteenth century, that civil magistrates and military commanders have 
be3ome so free from corruption and unholy ambition, that the Church may 
not only submit to, but SiCtuaWy solicit their interference in her affairs? 
Brethren, in the excitement of their patriotic ajeal, may think that the 
Church is in no danger ; that her purity and independence may be left to 
take care of themselves until other interests that are in jeopardy have been 
conserved ; but let them not sneer at nor denounce in the slang phrases 
of politicians the honest fears of others who are jealous for Christ's author- 
ity in his own kingdom. Mr. Moderator, I have prayed in public for my 
country ever since I was ordained ; have obeyed habitually the injunction 
of Scripture to make supplication for '' all in authority ;" and have reg.iilarly 
invoked God's blessing on the President of the United States ; but if this 



25 

were enjoined upon me by secular j)oivei% I would take go«)d care to let it be 
known that I do not recognize any such authority iii tlio Church. Nay, if 
the rresident and Congress, and the whole military power of the land 
should command me to use the blessed Lord's prayer my mother taught 
me, / would omit it for the time. I would not bow down even to the image 
of Ei'asiianism ; I would not rest under the shadow oi lis coming; but 
would say, with the children of the captivity, " We are not careful to 
answer thee in this matter, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us 
Irom the fiery furnace." 

Mil. MoDERAToa: I do not believe that the true life and prosperity of a 
nation c:in ever be preserved by the violation or suppression of any great 
princifile of truth, much less by stretching forth profane hands to touch 
the ark of God. That this has been done, and is now being done, in our 
country, and that it is one of the sins for which God prolongs his judg- 
ment, I firmly believe. IIow far those high in authority sanction the 
interference of subordinates in the spiritual affairs of our churches, I have 
livtle means of knowing. For one manly utterance the President deserves 
our thanka If not the most elegant, it is nevertheless one of the soundest 
declarations he ever made. I refer to the memorable saying that " the 
Uniied Suites must not undertake to run the Churches." And yet, in the 
face of this declaration, the officers of the United States are undertaking 
ani] doing this very thing. They are running the churches, — whither it is 
perhups not cofnpetent for me to say. Tliere are Churches on the roll of 
the A'^eembly, wnosa ministers have been banished or imprisoned without 
trial or accusation of crime, either civil or ecclesiastical ; — Churches in 
which the people are allowed to have no voice whatever in the choice of 
their own religious teachers; — Churches whose pulpits are filled under the 
authority ot provost marshals and military commanders, by ministers who 
report to the scuulur power the manner in which they have done Christ's 
work on the Sabbath. And it is a singular, if not an alarming flict, that 
sucn interference has not been attempted with Roman Catholic churches, 
exeept in the single instance of the Bishop of Natchez. The record of 
that ca?e may well cau.se a blush upon Protestant cheeks. I suppose the 
story is fitmiliar to the Synod. A military order, addressed to the Bishop, 
directed that certain prayers should be offered in all the churches of his 
dioi:ese. The bishop mildly but firmly repelled the interference of secul.'.r 
power with spiritual affairs. He was arrested and banished, and his 
churches clo.sed. Bat he was soon restored to his charge, the original 
order was rescinded, and his right to direct the spiritual affairs of his 
churches without interference fully acknowledged. 

I know not by what influences a tenderness, or rather a measure of justice 
denied to many of our Protestant ministers was accorded to a Konian 
Oiitlioiic, unless it was the force of truth in his own brave and faithful tes- 



26 

timony to tlie spiritnnlity and independence of the Church. Let me rend 

a part of liis letter, addressed to 

^^ Col. B. O. Fiirrar, iommandl ng at Natchez : 

" lii;sP]!:cTED Sir. : Picturning to IS^atchez from a portion of my visitation 
I have had communicated to me your 'Special Order, No. 3i, dated June 
18th, requiring all Pastors of Churches to make a public recognition cf 
their allegiance to the Government under which they live, and to which 
they a'C inilel)led for protection ; to pronounce a prayer appropriate to the 
timt's, and expressive of a proj>er spirit toward tlic Chief Magistrate of the 
United States.' * '* * 

This 'Order' requirt^s us to introduce a totally new element into our 
sacred worship, viz: The public profession of temporal allegiances to the 
constiiuLcd authorites, b j a prayer to be pronounced professedly for this 
end. * * * 

The chief reasons for resistence maj be reduced to these two : One is, 
that religious worship ought to be directed exclusively by the reliiiious 
authorities. T speak not of the negative right of other powers to suppress 
acts of intended ■ and unmerited insult of which there is no questioning 
here, but of the positive ordering of prayers, sermons, ceremonies, ere 

The oiher reason, special to trie present case is, that Divine worship 
being directed to God, it is not proper to introduce anything into it for the 
purpose of exhibiting our sentiments on temporal matters. This appears 
to be addrei^sing our devotions to men instead of God. 

I need not quote to you the well known clause ol the Constitution of the 
United States "prohibiting Congress from any interference with the free 
exercise of religious worship." The illustrious General Jackson, when 
President of the United States, determined as he was in the exercise of liis 
authority to its full extent, said he had no "constitutional power " even to 
invite the people to observe a a annual Thanksgiving day. lie was to 
administer the civil government, and take no cognizance of the religion of 
the people, except so far as to protect each one in following his own with- 
out molestation from his neighbors. If later Presidents, exercising their 
own judgments in the matter, have thought it well on special emergencies, 
as in time of pestilence and of war, to call on all the people to oiler prayers 
on certain days, yet, as far as I know, they have confined themselves to a 
simple invitaticjn, and not pretended to compel any one to comply. 

Once make the Church a subject of tl»e State in her spiritual functions, 
and she is no longer a living Church of the Iloly Ghost, infusing into her 
children the life of catholic charity. She becomes a kind of pious branch 
of 'policed 

Mil. Moderator, I know nothing of *th8 personal character or political 
sentiments of this Bishop ; but I honor and bless him for this defence of 
the headship of Christ. That letter would do infinite honor to any Protes- 
tant minister. It would do no discredit to the records of the General 
Assembly. And, if ever there was a time when the utterance of such sen- 
timents was ajipropriate to a court of the church, it was when the case of 
Dr. McPheeters was under consideration. I will not trepass on the 
patience of the synod by an extended review of this case, but will content 
mjself with brieriy showing: 1st That it did involve, in the language of 



27 

the prenmhle to the paper before you, the interference of the secular pow- 
er with the spiritual affairs of our Churches, tlie enforcement of political 
test oaths as a qualification for meraLers sitting in our church courts, and 
ihe pro-cripiion of christian minister.^, against whom there is no charge of 
hei'csy or crime, upon the ground tliat they entertain, or are supposed 
to entertain, certain political opiuious; and 2d. that the Assembly appar- 
ently sanctioned these things. 

Go the first point wc have documentary evidence of the most unmis- 
takt-ablo character. Read the provosL-marshars order excluding Dr. 
McPheclers from his pulpit and banishing him from the State. It is 
addressed to him as Reu. Samuel B. McPheeters, pastor of ihe Fine street 
C'litrch. It commands him "to cease, from this date, to exercise the fane- 
tons of his office within the State of Missouri, and to deliver up to the 
clerk of Pina street Church, all books, records, and papers belonging to 
that church." And what are the grounds upon which this condemnation 
and punishment are b;ised? What crime has he committed, and where 
are the facts which prove him guilty? Why, sir, it is not alleged that 
he has violated any law of the land. The soeoiQo charges agiin.^t him 
related exclusively to the manner in which he has discharged his oflTicial 
duties as a pastor, and as a member of our church courts. lie is accused, 
not of civil crimes, but of dereliction from duty as a minister in the exer- 
ciise of his sacred oflice. There are three, and only three, specific charges 
in the document, which is at once his indictment, his verdict, and his sen- 
tence of putiishin'.mt. (I) It is ch-irged that he reftised to ans'uer artaia en- 
qnirics addref^sed t:> him bij mimhers of his church in rejard to his j^ollticciu 
opiiiiins. Th-) provost-marshnl thinks a pastor is bound to ans.vcr suth 
questions to the sitisfaction of those in his congregation who claim to be 
loyal, and that if he does not, the secular power should interfere for his 
panishmont. Why, sir, under the iron rale of Cronwell, as Maciulay 
tells us, "the clergy of the fallen Anglican Church, (who were known to 
be ro\ alists and secret enemies of the Commonwealth,) were suffered to 
celebrate their worship on condition that they would abstain from preachinj 
upon politics.'" But the condition on which C/omwell thought his political 
enepkies might s-afely be permitted to preach — the very silence wiiich is ad 
thnt he demanded — is now the ground of interference of the secular power 
witVi the most sacred oifices in the Church, and one chief reason for banish- 
ing a minister against whom his enemies, like Daniel's, can find none occa- 
girm nor fault "concerning the kingdom," 

(2) The second charge in the indictment is, that " the said McPheeters^ 
aotiug with others of the same denomination^ has used all the influence of his 
ministerial character to prevent thehod>jofthe Church with v)hlch lie is connected 
from declaring or manifesting its loyaltg to the governmerd^^ i. e,. Dr. Mc- 
Pheeters, in the General Assembly, at ColurnbuSj did just what Dr, Ilodge 



28 

imd sixty otliers did in the Assembly, at Philadelphia ; he argued and pro- 
tested against the Assembly's making any political deliverance, or any 
fleclaration of allegiance to a human government. lie holds, th it llic 
Church, as such, owes allegiance only to Christ, and that Church court j 
ought not " to intermeddle with civil affairs, which concern the c )mraon- 
wealth." The provost-marshal decides that this is a very disloyal an 1 
danjrerous doctrine, so much so, that the man who maintains it in the 
Assembly ought to be excluded, by secular power, from his pastoral 
ofli< e. 

(;-{) The third and last specific charge in the document is, that Dr. Mc- 
Pheeters " has refused to observe, in their ohuious meaning and intent, ike 
recommendations of the Presidmt of the Unit'xl States to the various Churches.''^ 
I know not what particular "recommendations" are here referred to, nor 
what may be considered "their obvious meaning;" but I do knojv, and 
dare assert, that no recommendation of the President to the Cnui'ches has 
any binding force of law, human or divine ; and that where Churches 
choose, in the exercise of that liberty which both the Word of God and the 
law of the land secure to them, to accept such recommendations, it i^ not 
for any officer, civil or military, it is not for a chief magistrate himself to 
sit in judgment upon the minister in regard to the manner of carrjnng oat 
those recommendations. For these three things, and ihey inclu^le all the 
alledged facts, Dr. McPheeters and his wife and little ones were publicly 
and icmominiously exiled from the State. The subsequent modi2c;ition oi 
the order, at the instigation ot the President, revokmg his banishment 
but leaving him still excluded from the "exercise of the functions of his 
ofiTice," only makes the interference of secular power with the Caurch stil] 
more glaring. lie is declared to be free in the exercise of all his civil 
rights. Ho is pronounced no longer dangerous as a citizen ; bat he is 
held to be unfit to preach. The secular authorities say to him, in elR-ct— 
" You may go where you will, but you must not enter the pulpit ; 
you may do what you will, within the limits of the law— you may 
buy, and sell, and vote ; but you must not preach. You must not tell 
sinners the way to salvation, nor baptize the children of the covenant, nor 
minister the consolations of religion to God's suffering people, nor go into 
Christ's banqueting house to distribute the sacred emblem of the Saviour's 
love." The State has no charge of crime against him ; the courts of the 
Church hare never impeached him ; but the provost-marshal adjudges him 
unfit for "the exercise of the functions of his ofiice m the Slate of Missouri." 
Nor does the interference end here. The Church, which had recieved him 
as Christ's ascension gift and loved him for his work sake, must be rebuked 
for thus loving and adhering to him. Their continued affection for the 
ministry of a man who will not answer the questions of politicians, nor vote 
for political deliverances in the General Assembly, shows that they are not 



Of 



9 

fit to manrif^'C tlioii' owrt affair.'. The elders find trustees must be set aide, 
and the congreg;ition mast be excluded from all voice in the choice of 
another minister." 

"It it further ordered, that the church edifice, boolcs, and papers, at tlie 
corner of Eleventh and Pine streets, be placed under the control of tiiree 
loyal members of Pine street Church, namely, George P. Strong, Jnmcs 
M. Corbitt, and John M. Ferguson, who shall sec that its pulpit bo filled 
by a lojal minister of tne gospel." 

Now, Sir, is not this very much like " the abomination of desolation 
spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place?" Since the 
days when Ilerod set up a Roman eagle over the gate of the Temple, has 
tho secular power ever exercised or claimed a more absolute control over 
the spiritual affairs of the Church ? If a civil magistrate or military officer 
may sir in judgment upon a minister for the manner in which he discharges 
his dudes as a pastor and a presbyter, may interfere to settle controversies 
in a congregation, may exclude a pastor from his pulpit, and that without 
the form of a trial before any tribunal, or even the accusation of any crime 
known to the law, may vest all the franchises of God's people and the 
whole government of a church in a committee appointed by and dependant 
upon the secular power — what becomes of the religious liberty for which 
the fathers of the reformation contended, and where are the crown rights 
of the Ilead of the Church for vrhich our Presbyterian martyrs have ever 
stood ready to sacriilce their lives? 

But you are ready to ask for the proof that the General Assembly 
sanctioned these things. I affirm that the Assembly appareutli/ sanc- 
tioned them by its silence. Other cases of interference by the secular 
power v.'ith the spiritualities of the Church, though made familiar to the 
people until thcj^ have ceased to excite surprise, have not been brought 
directly to the Assembly's notice; but the ivhoh history of this case was 
spread out hefore H. The documents to which I have referred were read 
and justified in the course of the debate ; the claim to secular jurisdiction 
involved in these documents was repeatedly asserted ; and yet, with ihe 
exception of a few mnnly utterances, such as fell from the lips of Dr. 
McLean and Dr. Jutdcin, no caveat was entered against the validity of 
the monstrous claim, no rebuke uttered against the exercise of such 
dangerous powers, no protest recorded against the repetition and extension 
of the abominable precedent. Surely the Assembly did not remain silent 
because it was afraid to speak — timidity in the defence of fundamental 
truth has not hitiierto been a characteristic of Presbyterians ; n(;r because 
Its members were opposed to making delivonmces upon matters v/hich 
concern the commonwealth — tho scruples of the Church on that point iiave 
grown "small by degrees" if not "beautifully less" ever since the 
Assembly of ISGi ; nor because there was any fear that its loyalty to the 



80 

government v;as in danger of boing compromised — its own deliverances 
have put that question beyond the reach of controversy. Why, then, was 
the Assembly silent when the evidences that the independence of the 
Church was in jeopardy were thrust upon its attention and justified at its 
bar? The world will think, and will have a right to think, that its silence 
gives consent ; that, in the excitement of its zeal for the attainment of 
other objects, our Church is willing, for the time, to sacrifice her control 
^ over her own spiritual affairs, or at least to share it as an ally with the 
secular pov/er. 

But our proof 'is not merely of this negative and constructive kind. In 
regard to " tlie enforcement of military test oaths as a qualification for 
members citting in our church courts," it is positive and flagrant. One 
chief point in the case, if, indeed, it were not the hinge upon which it 
turned, was whether the Presbytery which carried out the views of the 
provost-marshal, by dissolving the pastoral relation of Dr. McPheeters in 
opposition to the well-known wishes of the great majority of his people, 
was ^.Jree Presbytery, and therefore competent to act in the premises, when 
the m.'ijority of its members were kepc away from the meeting by the 
injunction of a political test oath. In its final act'on on the case, the 
Assembly declares that the " resignation of the pastoral relation, and the 
distracted stare of the Church, seemed plainly to call for the action of the 
Presbytery, and being on the ground, and conversant with all the circumstances 
and demands of the case, they seem most competent to understand and decide 
upon tuhut thai action shoidd Z/e." Now, sir, this pounds to me like grim 
sarcasm. I say nothing about the fiict that the resignation of the 
Pa^^tor, which was made in a moment of distraction, was attempted to 
be recalled upon more mature deliberation, and that the Presbytery 
refused to grant that privilege. Let that pass. I call your attention 
to the statement which no reasonable man will dispute, that thoy " who 
were on the ground," the co-presbyters and associates of Dr. McPhceters, 
t!ie ministers and ciders who were familiar with the character of his 
Ministry and tlie condition and wants of his Chuich, *" were most com- 
l^etent to understand and decide npon the case." 

Now did these competent judges decide the case? Did ^//ey make or 
ap[)iovc the decision which the Assembly ratifies? Why, sir, there was 
the record before the Assembl}', showing that the Presbytery of St. Loais 
consists of about sixty members ; that the resolution to dissolve Dr. Mc- 
Pheeters pastoral relation, was carried by eleven vcAes, being a majority of 
three of those present at the meeting; that of these eleven votes eight 
were given by Ministers, only two of whom were Pastors. And there, 
too, was a memorial on the table of the Assembly, signed by a largo 
majority of the Ministers and Elders of St. Louis Presbytery, protest- 
ing against the action of the Presbytery as unexpedient and unjust, and 



ai 

hesescliing tlic Assembly not to sustain it. In what light then are wc to 
regard the dedaration of the Assembly, that ihey " who were on the 
ground and c >nversant with all the circumstances and demands of the case, 
were most competent to understand and decide it?" But it will be said, 
that these memorialists erred in not attending the meeting of Presbytery, 
and so according to a strict construction of law, forfeited their right to a 
voice in the decision of the case. Suppose we grant this — what then? 
\Vould it have been a great stretch of kindnCvSS, or even of justice towards 
these mistaken brethren, to remand the case to them that they might have 
an opportunity to correct their error? Was the Assembly, after all, un- 
willing that the case should be decided by these most competent judges? 
If i/iezr judgment were really respected or desired in the premises, it would 
not have b^cn difficult to obtain it. Their opinion v/os already known to 
the Assembly, and utterly disregarded in the decision of the case. But the 
question occurs, why was not that opinion given and recorded by their 
votes in Presbjtery ? They tell you the reason. They told it to the 
A'^sembly. And when we consider their testimony, the action of the As- 
sembly may well crimson the cheek of every one who loves the free com- 
monwealth of Jesus Christ. The General commanding in the department 
of Missouri, had issued an order commonly known as " the Church order." 
By this order, ecclesiastical courts, before organizing, are required to ascer- 
tain who had, and who had not taken a certain oath prescribed in the order 
Rs necessary to make the members eligible; a provost marshall is required 
to be preseiit at the organization, and see the order enforced ; and a ftdluro 
to comply on the part of the court, or any of its members, is marie a mili- 
tary offence. Now, a majority of the members of the Presbytery of St. 
Louis, believed that they could not carry out this order without ignoring 
the headships of Christ in his Church, and violating their ordination vows. 
Ilear their own language in a letter addressed to the commanding General, 
and laid before the Assembly in their memorial: 

" We, the undersigned, hereby certify that we have each taken the oath 
of allegiance to the Provisional Government of Missouri and to the Govern- 
ment of the United States of America. 

" We also solemnly affirm that we will support the Constitution and 
laws thereof, and that we will not give aid and comfort to the enemies of 
either. We desire and purpose to conduct ourselves in all respects as good 
citizens, and to " be subject to the powers that be," in accordance with the 
teachings of God's word. 

" As a matter of principle, however, and because we recognize the head- 
ship of Jesus Christ alone in his Church, we can not allow any human auiho- 
liiv to determine the qualifications of members who compose our Ecclesias- 
tical Courts. 

" Wc, therefore, respectfully request the Commanding General to allow 
us, as loyal citizens, to assemble without let or hindrance, in order to trans- 
act business connected only with the Redeemer's Kingdom, and without 



requiring us to oboy Or>ler No. 61, that seeais, at least, to interfere with 
the liberty and purity of the Church. 

" We assure you, General, that our request is not dictated by a captious 
or {;\ult-finding spirit, and in proof of this assurance we shall not nisi-st 
your auihority, but quietly rem lin at hornj instead of attending the Eccle- 
siastical Cjurt which is about to coaveue at Kirkvvood, uulcis our request 
can be granted." 

To this humble petition, the Commanding General has never condescend- 
ed to give an answer, unless it has been done since the meeting of the 
Assembly.* For this reason, Dr. ]\rcPheeters and the majority of his Pre-> 
bytery felt themselves to be excluded fj'orn the meeting in which his cas^e 
was decided. Nov/ we put it to any candid man, did riot the Assembly 
sanction the enforcement of that political test oath as a qualification for 
membors fitting in our Church courts? To put the truth m the mildest 
form, the Assembly did " a/)^ja;'5?i% sanction it," ar.d that not merely by 
abstaining from all testimony against it, but by rcctgnizmg the court 
from which these memorialists were excluded as a free aud competent 
Presbyleiy. 

But, Air. Moderator, there is a still plainer and more grievous aspect of 
this co?e. The Af^sembly not only sanctioned but itself took part in " tho 
pro.^criptiim of a Christian minister against whom there is no accusation of 
her sy or crime, upon the ground that he is supposed to enterLain certain 
political opinions." 

In its final action upon the case the Assembly declares "the question of 
the pa -tor's loyalty to his national government, which seemed to be so 
largely a distuibing element in the Cnurch, has not been prcy;e?7y before 
the Assembly, as it v;as not pronounced upon in any Presbytcrial aciion." 
Tliis appears to ine like another grim sarcasm. It is true, indeed, that Dr. 
McPiiccter's loyalty v/as not properly before the Assembly ; but, as ev^ry 
one of us knows, and as I shall presently demonstrate by the testimony of 
a groat cloud of witnesses, this was the qiteUion upon which the decision of 
the case turned, in both the Presbytery and the Asseuibly, All the 
documents in tlie case, and the whole discussion of it, from t!ie mecin-^ of 
church members who undertook to catechise their pislor about his political 
views, to its consummation in the Assembly, show conclusively that it 
turned and was decided upon informal charges not inoperly before the 
court: i e., not before it according to the rules prescribed in our form 

* Since writinc; the above, I have received a letter from a prominent mnn in St. Lonis, from 
winch the foUouing is an extract : " ISome time ago, application was ma.le to General llosecr.inz 
60 to modify liia''(Jliiirch Onier" that our Presbytery could meet. If this request hid been 
granted, we intend' d t > meet and j-ut to riglits, net oiily t!ie affairs of Pine street Chnroh, but 
many other matters connected ^\ith the I're-bytery for the last two years. General llosL-cranz 
Enid he lui 1 no objecions to making tiie modification required to give satisfaction ; at the same 
time he remarket that Dr. Hodge had fully endorsed his order and he could not see why iuiy 
objection wjis made when such men a])pruved of it. We waited day alter day, and week after 
Wtek, but uo mudiiica ion has been made." 



S3 

of government, and guaranteed to the meanest criminal by tlie prin- 
ciples of common law. And we desire your special attention to the nature 
of these charges. It waa not pretended that Dr. McPheelers had done or 
said anything disloj'-al — anything for which it was possible to try him 
before any tribunal, civil or ecclesiastical. The testimony on this point is 
of the highest and most explicit kind. The President of the United States, 
after talking with him, writes a letter to his subordinate in authority, 
wliich was laid before the Assembly, in which he sa3\s, "The quesiion 
remains whether such a man (>f unquestioned good moral character^ who has 
taken such an oath as he has, and cannot even be charged ivith violating it^ 
and ivho cannot he charged loith any other specific act or omission^ can with 
safety to the government he exiled upon the suspicion of Jiis secret symjMthies.''^'^ 
The elder who prosecuted the case through all its stages declared in the 
Assembly, " I do believe that he (Dr. McPheeters) faithfully endeavored 
to keep his oath of allegiance as he understood it." It was admitted on 
all hands, by those who took part in the debate in the Assembly, and 
proclaimed by some in terms of the highest eulogy, that Dr. McPheeters 
was sound in the faith, and unimpeachable, so fiar as word and deed are 
concerned, in all the relations of life. And yet, it is as plain as the 
light of day that this good minister of Christ — this sincere and upright 
man — was pronounced b}'' his Presbytery unfit to be the pastor of one of 
our Churches, and that decision was ratified by the Assembly, upon the 
ground that he is stijyposed to erdertain certain political opinions, not consistent 
with the standard of political loyalty which his accusers have set up for 
theraselve:5. Fortunately we are cot left on this point to suspicion or 
conjecture, to the general impression on the public mind, or even to our 
own fallible memory. The debates in the Assembly are reported and 
published, and they furnish a mass of information and evidence to which 
we believe the future historian of our Church will turn with a sad heart 
■when tracing back the course of events to their fountain head. 

I will not trespass upon your patience by reading all the extracts I 
have made from the debates of the Assembly ; showing; on the one hand, 
that the members who voted to sustain the complaint did so upon the 
ground that the disloyalty of the complainant had not been^:>?-oyec?; and, 
on the other hand, that his assumed disloyalty justified the Presbytery in 
the course it had pursued. It will be sufficient to cite a few witnesses 
whose competency will not be disputed. 

Dr. RiCi3 said : " That we have virtually a minister on trial — virtually on 
trial ; visited too with the severest penalties that could result from a trial ; 
and yet he is on trial without charges, without citation, without specifi- 

• Nevertheless, the President did not order the release of Dr. McPheeters, In the conclusion 
of his letter he tells liis subordinates that the whole matter is left to their disposal, according 
to their own judgment, Thus, ia effect, he say a — "/find no fault in himj but take ye him/ 



34 

cations tabled, -without a list of wit.nes.=!es ; in short, without any of those 
formulitics and precautions by which our constiiution guarrls \he sacred 
rights of accused ministers. Ah, f^ir, it is a sad state of things when a 
minister can be put on trial for his character and ministerial lile, without 
allowing him any of the means of protecting himself that the constiiution 
guarantees. The real charge brought against Dr. McPheeters was disloyalUj ; 
on this the opposition of the minority of his church was based ; on this the 
allegation of loss of usefulness was founded ; on this charge the Presbytery 
proceeded. This is manifest in all the pleadings there, and in all the 
pleadings here. This was a charge affecting his moral character ; for dis- 
lo3'alty is a sin. Ilad the Presbytery a right to punish him for this sin, 
and to fix tin's blot upon his character, without arraigning him, and tabling 
charges, and giving him an opportunity of defence? lie (Dr. Eice) did 
not know whether that brother is loj-al or not That was what the Pres- 
bytery ought to have found out before they punished him. When asked 
upon the subject, he said he had taken an oath of allegiance, and kept it. 
This was enough up to the point at which they were ready to try him. What 
more did they warn? The great principle which lies at the f )u;)dation of 
the unity of the Church is this: that the degree of unity of faith and prac- 
tice required for membership is that which is specified in the Confession 
of Faith, Government, and Discipline of the Church. The terms of mem- 
bership are all inside of the Book: all oatside of it does not belong to the 
terms of union and communion. Dr. Breckinridge believes in the pre- 
millenial advent of Christ — the speaker does not. We must be lelt to do 
as we ])!ease in regard to matters outside of the Book ; if not, the terms of 
communiorl are violated, and the unity of the Church destroyed. You 
must alter the Book before you can punish me for what is outside of it. 
Where there is no law, there is no transgression. If a man can stand the 
ordeal of a military vigilance for a year or more, the hue and cry of popu- 
lar claiuor, and the je;dousy of public suspicion, with an elder after him 
all the time, pursuing him even to strange cities, he must be pure, indeed, 
if he stand the test. But this brother has done it. No fault has been 
proven ; and he is found a pure man, even his enemies being judges. 
Why, sir, Dr. Hodge, in the Assembly of 1861, took quite as strong 
ground as Dr. McPheeters has ever taken, in favor of non-intervention of 
the Church in political matters. Is he disloyal? The Svnod of Kentueky 
passed strong resolutions against such interference, Dr. P. J. Breckinridge 
taking the lead in them. Is Dr. Breckinridge disloyal? If a man can 
speak seven hours, with entire license to say uhat he pleased, as Mr. 
Strong did, and yet not adduce the remotest proof, or make any show of a 
case against his pastor's loyalty, it is surely evidence that the case is not 
very capable of being made." 

The Eev. Dr. Jumktn said — " It was Erastianism — Erastianism of the 
direst type — the Erastianism of the sword, to punish the minister for the 
imagined political errors of the man ; whilst the man, the ciiiznn, was lelt 
to all his civd franchises I Sir, it is amazing that logical minds cannot^ 
and that religious minds minds ivill not see this distinction, so iinportant 
in \\s, bearings upon the question of religious liberty and the rights of con- 
science I He thanked God that we had a President at the head of our 
governtneut, who understands the principles of religious liberty, the rights 
of conscience, and the relations between the Church and State, belter than 



85 

some Doctors of Divinity with whom he had conversed on this subject. 
The President saw the bhindcr liis subordinates hud committed, and with 
the perspicacitj of a clear head, and the candor of an honest heart, he 
npplied the remedy. In his own pithv and pregnant style he tells his sub- 
ordinates that he would not himself undertake, nor would he permit them 
to " run the churches," Would to God the members of this Assembly, 
and our preachers generally, would learn wisdom from that admirable letter 
of our President; and whilst he wisely refrains from "running the 
churches," let ihc Church refrain from attempts to run the State. 

Now, the entire ecclesiastical proceedings, resulting in the substantial 
removal of this confessedly godly, gifted, and faithful man from the minis- 
try, were based n]-jon the inilitary infliction of an ecck-iash'cal sentence. 
Instead of defending this broth^T against the oppression of the mail- 
clad hand of military power by entreaty, and such influence as might have 
stayed that hand, his Presbytery made that oppression a pretext lor dis- 
solving his pastoral relation. They dissolved this man's pastoral relation 
on account of trouble in the church — trouble that arose, as he alleges, on 
account of a false accusation of disloyalty against him ; and this point is 
conceded by the Presbytery." 

The Eev. Dr. Ceavkn said — "If this Assembly shall refuse to sustain 
these appeals and complaints, and refuse to listen to the memorial of the 
St. Louis brethren, they will send forth a brother, universally admitted to 
be a man of groat piety and purity of character, virtually branded with the 
charge of disloyalty, and also of contumacy. The susriicion of disloyalty 
was the real ground of the action of the St. Louis Presbytery. I do not 
stand here to deferid Dr. McPiieeters from this insinuation or charge. It 
is not in evidence l^eforc us, nor was it before the Presbytery of St Louis, 
as courts, whether he was loyal or disloyal, contumacious or otherwise. He 
and his church both challenge investigation ; and now, if we refuse to 
sustain these appeals, we do virtually give a judicial seuteuce without 
evidence." 

Judge Lixx, ruling elder, said — " There seemed to be but one single 
question before us here, and that is the loyalty of Dr. McPheeters. It is 
said that there is no evidence of his disloyalty — that this issue had never 
been fairly tried. But the Presbyterian Church expects her ministers not 
only to be negatively loyal, but to preach loyalty to the people by precept 
and example. " Let your light so shine before men that they may seeyoar 
good works," is a scripture precept; and when disloyalty is abroad in the 
land, it. is the duty of the ministry to preach against it; and the silence of 
Dr. McPheeters proves to us that his loyalty is of a very technical kind. 
It had been asked m the Judicial Committee, how could tins case come 
before this bv>dy ? and he had acquiesced in the manner in vvliich it was 
presented. But now it is pleaded that this question of loyalty is not before 
us. Js it possible, sir, that a wrong can exist without a remedy/ Must 
this man be allowed to preach there, and prevent the growth and harmony 
of that church ? It ought not to be. lie argued that the Presbytery had 
power, under chap, x, sec. 10, to right all wrongs that impaired the 
spiritual welliire of the churches under their care. He cared not whether 
ttie J'reshytery acted regularly or irregularly. He took direct aim at the 
justice of the case, and he believed the Presbytery had a power of injunc- 
tion ; and it is here before us to iuq^uiro whether this Proibytcry had a right 



86 

to interpose with the power of injuction. It seems to be left out of view 
that they have such a power ; but they have, and this is the reason why 
the question of loj^alty was entertained. They felt that they had a riglit to 
enjoin a disloyal minister not to preach. lie thought the loyalty of the 
Presbyterian Church requires that the ministry t^adi loyalty, pray loyalty, 
live loyalty. AVhen great questions are trembling in the balance, it is no 
time to put our light under a bushel. If dislo3'alty is a sin, loyalty is a 
virtue ; and is there any Christian virtue that ought not to be taught in the 
pulpit?" 

Dr. Wm, L. Breckenridge said — "This brother is not on trial in form, 
but he is in fact on trial, not only for his relation to his people as a pastor, 
but for his character as a minister of Christ and a steward of the mysteries 
of God. It has been attempted to thrust him out of his work an^mg the 
flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made him overseer, and to brand 
into him a mark of dishonor, with the allegation of that which on all sides 
is called a crime — and yet in violation of the wishes, and against the 
remonstrances of the great bodj'- of his people and of his brethren ; with no 
charge that he might answer; with no responsible accusers whom he might 
confront; with no witnesses on oath whom he might question, and whose 
testimony he might disprove ; in the face of their absolute and unquestioned 
deniid of their accusations ; in the absence of the merest suggestion of an 
overt act, winch alone could establish the allegation ; upon a base suspi- 
cion, wholly negative in its most plausible pretences. lie is called. a dis- 
loyal man — not true to the country ; and on this clamor, it is attempted to 
drive him from his work in the church. But he declares, atid it is not 
denied, that he has freely taken astringent oath of allegiance to the country. 
lie insists that he took it in all good conscience — before God. lie declares, 
on the faith of a Christian, and the honor of a gentleman, that he has kept 
it. No man insinuates that he hns broken it. Ilis Oj)posers themselves 
being judges, he is a man of blameless manners — of purest life, of exem- 
plary godliness." 

The Bev. Thomas H. Clelland said — '"As judges, we are sworn to try 
the accused according to the principles of our charter, and not according 
to the law of the commonwealth. All the disloyalty, which as an ecchsi- 
aslical court we are competent to try, is ecdesiaadcal disloyalty. If Dr. 
McPiieeters h'ls committed an ecclesiastical offence, let us try and condemn 
him lor it by and according to ecclesiastical law. If guilty of civil offence, 
let us turn him over to civil authorities; if guilty of both, let him be tried 
by both. Let us try him by our own law, and let the civd authorities try 
him by their law. We cannot try a Presbyterian for purely civil offence; 
if we do, we violate our solemn ordination. As jurymen, we have nothing 
to do in making the laws, nor to allow eitlier our prejudices or secret coa- 
victions of the guilt of the accused to iniiuenco us in our decisions. To 
the law and to the testimony. By our law he must stand or fall. Dr. M-j- 
Pheeters is either guilty or innocent. If disloyal to his government, that 
government is competent to judge him as a citizen. If disloyal to the 
principles of his Church, he is entitled to a fair and impartial trial, brought 
up to this highest court by regular appeal This court has no right to 
originate and decide such a prosecution. So, in any, and in every way, a 
merely political question has nothing to do with this matter. And if we 
allow such consideralions, even secretly, to bias our djcisions, so vital to 



87 

the Chnrch and all conoerned, it violates our orfllnation vow. Our hearts 
at'e deceitful, and we uiioonsoiouslyare influenced by secret niotives. T^ie 
barrel that includes the m-iiuspring of a watch does not propel the 
Tnaehiner)^ but only conceals the power that does. 

Whatever may bo the secret yiews and feelings of Dr. McPheeters, so 
long as he does nothing to violate his ordination vows, or any other obli- 
gation, which, as a Presbyterian, he is bound to obey, we cannot, and dare 
not toucli a hair of his head. 

And now, sir, is there the slightest evidence that Dr. McPheeters has 
l)f>en convicted of a violation of a single statute of the Presbyterian 
Church? Instead of this, as a Presbyteiian, a minister, a pastor, a Chris- 
tian, a citizen, a gentleman, he is endorsed in the very highest term^, even 
by liis accusers. In a speech of seven mortal hours, vvhic!i, had it all been 
exhausted on one man, instead of being distributed among two hundred, 
would have been 1400 hours long, there was not produced the slightest 
hint that Dr. JMcPheeters was guilty of anything which could affect his 
standing in the Presbyterian Church. It is true, ho is complained of for 
not vociferously clamoring for the present alniinistration ; but we maintain 
that there is no lavv in our Constitution, civil or ecclesiastical that obliges 
any man to avo.v his political principles. To make such a demand of Dr. 
Mcl'hceters, specially placed in such a tlelicate situation, requiring the wis- 
dom of a serpent and the harnilessness of a dove, is more than Erastianism, 
and is the vdcst species of Jacobinism. The spirit of such a demand has 
b en belbre expressed in thiinQ words— -'' We have a law, and by ovr law 
he must die.' " 

PiEV. Dr. Maclean, Pi'esident of Princeton College said — " It can be 
cle:irly shown that this was not a tree i'resbytory, and, therefore, its actJ 
were not valid. lie quoted from Stuart of Pardovan, the opinions of 
Henderson, and others, that the Assemblies of 1SG3, and others that were 
held when a portion of the members vv'cro in duress, were not free and 
valid Assemblies. And he quoted a passage penned by Dr. P. J. Breckin- 
ridge, to show that it has always been the settled doctrine, that the right 
to assemble in church courts is divine; not dependent upon the civil 
power; and that where the civil or military arm is thrust in so as to 
restrain members from attending, it vitiates the freedom and the validity 
of tlie body so restrained, llad he been a member of that community, he 
would have maintained the supremacy of the Church, and attended Church, 
and attended without military permission, or not at all. It is said there 
was nothing to hinder the majority from attending, if they would take the 
oath. But the right to impose that oath was the very matter in dispute. 
Are we to submit to an oath imposed at the discretion or the whim of a 
military commander, as a test and qualhcation of membership of a court of 
Jc.-us Christ? Shall we thus place his kingdom in a position of subordin- 
ation to military authority? Shall we surrender the indepondenco of 
Chria's crown? iS'ever, sir, never! As a member of civil society, ho 
would take all oaths legally imposed. lie had taken an oath of allegiance, 
in the course of his official life, six times, and as a citizen had no objection 
to taking it. But when it was thrust; upon him as a qualfioation for olfice 
in a court of the indepeudent kingdom of Jesus Curist, it was another 
matter. 

It was not needful for him to express his views of the rebellion — they 



38 

"Were well enough understoorl, and he regretted the dread of public opinion, 
that was ever forcing men to declarations of lo^ya'ty — be left his own record 
to speak. But this Presbytery vvas not a free Prcsbylorj'-, and therefore no 
Presbytery. The appeal was made— it arrested proc<;etlings — and Dr. 
McPbeeters is the pastor of Pine street Church ; and this Pre-^byter7 had 
no power to reach over the head and autliorlty of the Synod, and by an 
exercise of naked absolute power, remove a pastor from his flock, without 
trial or investigation." 

The last witness is Eev. Dr. Musgrave — a father in Israel, a leader in 
the Assembly, a member of the committee winch drafted the llnal minute 
in the case, in which it is dcjlared that the question of Dr. McPheeters' 
loyalty " v/as not properly before the Assembly." I know not how far 
that word i^roperly may prove his own and the Assembly's consistency 
but hear his testimony • 

'* lie (Dr. MusGRAVii)) fully justified the Government in all they had done, 
in the way of military ariests, orders, and restraints. We ate struggling for 
the nation's life, and any means thought nei^cssary to pi-eserve it are justi- 
fiable, lie approved of the suspension of the w;-it of habeas corpus. The 
whole northern country had willingly yielded these precious rights for a, 
time, in order to f^reserve tliis Grovernment. If this Governt>ierit is 
destroyed, what will become of the Church of GofI ? We are called upon, 
then, by our love for the Church, to sup{)ort the Govei'nment. 

Although Dr. McPheeters complains only of this last act <>f the Presby- 
tery, and pleads that this act was barred by the operation of the appiiai to 
Synod, he (Dr. Musgrave) was of opinion that the com')laint to the Assem- 
bl}'- biought up the whole case here; and we can act upon the entire case. 
So that what brethren regard as irrelevant, is strictly relevant. We have 
taken bim at bis woid. And the question is, had the Presbytej-y a riuht 
to dissolve the pastoral relation, and was it expedient to do so? I'he 
speaker thought that both these questions could be answered in the affir- 
mative. They had the power, and his disloyalty made it expedient. 

MoDEt^ATOR, if the man is loyal, why does he not say soV Sir, in this 
crisis of our country's history, every minister of the gospel ought to speak 
out. lie has but to say that he considers secession a wicked rebelliou — 
that he abhors it ; and then he will not be suspected. He (Dr. Musgrave^ 
had many private fiiends in Baltimore, and he had been astoni.-hed beyond 
measure to hear them in:-iist that they were loyal, v/hilst they gave the b-st 
evidence that they were not. On one occasion one of tiieiu was in his 
(Dr. Musgrave's) house, when news unfavorable to tlie Federal cause was 
received. This friend could not conceal his joy ; but wiien, by-and-by, 
the news changed its aspect, and it turned out to be a Union success, lie 
was chop-fallen, and could not disguise it. lie (Dr. Musgrave) would vote 
not to sustain." 

Mr. Moderator. I submit to you and to every candid man in the 
Synod, that I have made out my case. The Assembly not only sanctioned 
but participated in the proscription of a Christian minister, against 
whom there is no charge of heresy or crime, upon the ground that he is 
supposed to entertain certain political opinions." Stript of all forms and 



S9 

tedinicnlities, and regarded, as it would appear in a court of equity, upon 
its real merits, the whole proceeding, from its inception to its consumma- 
tion, amounts to this, that a minority of a congregation, urged on by poli- 
tical zeal and abetted by the interference of the secular power, has been 
al'le to deprive the majority of the minister of their choice, whom even his 
enemies admit to be a faithful and able servant of Christ, proscribing and 
branding him as a disloyal man, simply because he is supposed to entertain 
political opinions about which the Bible and our standards have nothing 
to say. ^Yhether he docs entertain these opinions I do nolhioiu, and so far 
as this case is concerned 7 do not care. I love him as a minister of Christ 
I feel the wrong he has suffered as a personal grievance. I do believe and 
feel that the whole case presents a story of persecution for opinions sake, 
which if told of some by-gone age would excite the indignation of us all ; 
and which will remain in the ages to come a blot on the once fair fame of 
the Presbyterian Church. Let not the members of Synod be offended that 
I use the word persecuiion. We are accustomed to associate that word 
with the scaffold, the stake, and the dungeon ; but I tell j^cu there is a tooth 
that enters the soul sharper than the steel that the pierces the flesh ; sense 
of injury and wrong, received in the bouse of our friends, more burnino- 
than fire, more torturing to an honorable and loving heart than a crown of 
thorns. 

Dr. MePheeters is not the only one who has endured ihis crucifixion of 
the soul. There are other ]\Iini£ters who have grown grey in the service 
of the Church, and the Church's Maslcr, who have been thrust out of their 
own pulpits, and wliom most of us dare not ask into ours, who are frowned 
upon and virtually cast out by bretlren witli whom they once took sweet 
counsel in the liouse of God, and made to feel like strangers in the Church 
they love as their mother, and would v.'illingly lay down their lives to 
defend. And all this, not because they are guilt}', or even accused of any 
heresy or crime known to any law hunian or divine; but simpl/ because 
in matters not revealed in the Bible, they claim the liberty to think and 
be silent. Now what I want to know, and have a right to know, is this; 
if I decline to labor for the success of the declared policy of anv civil mag- 
istrate or human govenmient — yet, wliile I love Christ and adore him as 
my only King, and adhere to all the doctrines and requirements of our 
standards of F.dth and order, am I to be held, accordiuG: to the teachino-s 
3f the Assembly as an opponent of the wdl of God, and a violator of all 
the pledges which grow out every earthly and every religious interest, and 
vvill my brethren, with whom I am ready to go all lengths in laboring for 
the gospel of Christ and the salvation of souls, practically exclude me from 
their fellowship? These are no idle questions. You know they are not 
And it is time tiiey were answered. It is time for the Church to vindicate 
her own character as the spouse of Christ; and to give her troubled and 



40 "^ 

mourning sons, some new assurances 'that the old landmarks of Church 
fellowship and ecclesiastical rights are not to bo swept away. I 

1 ask 3'ou to make the declaration of principlcj contained in the paper 
before jon, as a measure of peace, as a standard against the enemy that 
cometh in upon us like a flood, . ■ a balm for wounds in the body of 
Christ, dcfpseatcd and rankling. If, when the smoke of civil war passes 
away, and the stream of fraternal blood dries up, v/e would have the 
Church in the position of a comforter to men of all parties, keeping the 
peace in her own bosom after politicians have made peace in the fState, 
and realizing in the future that gloiious unity in which there is neither 
"Greek nor Jew, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and 
in all," v>^e mxust remove from her record all trace of political passion and 
sectional hatred. We must purge her reputation from all v/cll grounded 
suspicion of political partizanslii[), and bid her go forth v.'ith her gar- 
ments unspotted hy the world, the cross of Christ the only symbol on her 
banner, and the gospel of peace the only proclamation on her lips. 

But you may rest assured that she cannot retain the confldence and 
adherence of her own ministers and members, nor prevent discord and 
disunion in her own bosom, if such legislation as that of the last Assembly 
Stands uurebukcd. 



-/.^' 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 703 282 A 



